|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design is NOT Creation[ism] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
This is a topic that has to be addressed and then put to bed. ID was never intenended to take the place of Creation. Creation can stand or fall on its own merits. As can ID. As will be shown IDists understand the difference between the two and Creationists understand the difference. Even some or even most critics understand the difference. The question must then be asked, "why do some critics insist on conflating the two?".
quote: The logic would be that IF ID = Creation then all IDists would be Creationists.1) Dr. Behe makes it clear he is not a Creationist. 2) Creationist very much doubt common descent. 3) He also makes it clear that he is an IDist. 4) Therefore one can be an IDist without being a Creationist. 5) Conclusion is that ID is not Creation. quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------- AIG on ID:http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp Young* Earth Creation:1) There was a sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from God. 2) Mutations and natural selection are insufficient to bring about the development of all living things from a single organism. 3) Changes in the originally created kinds of plants and animals occur within fixed limits. 4) There is a separate ancestry for humans and apes. 5) The earth’s geology can be explained via catastrophism, primarily by the occurrence of a worldwide flood. 6) The earth and all living kinds had a relatively recent origin (on the order of 10,000 years ago). (* There are creationists who believe in an old earth. They argue over the length of a day in Genesis. Are the first few days in Genesis actually eras?) ID: pg. 921) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of past intelligent design. 2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanation for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems. Do the two have similarities? Yes they do. Both also have similarities with parts of the theory of evolution as both agree with parts 1-3 and 4 with additional mechanisms, below. Some IDists don’t have an issue with #5 but say the mechanism is more than NS acting on RM. #6 is out and is only the belief of a small minority anyway. So what label is next IDC evolutionism? Principal meanings of evolution: pg. 136/71) Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature. 2) Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population. 3) Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor. 4) The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations. 5) Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor. 6) Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. All parts with page numbers were taken from Darwinism, Design and Public Education. "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
No one is confusing ID with young earth Creationism. But ID has always been a part of Creationism. It's the form of Creationism Behe has in mind when he describes those who think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God." This is theistic evolution.
IDists have little credibility within science because they are copying the previous dishonesty of young earth Creationists who removed mention of God from Genesis and claimed it was science. IDists are merely removing God from theistic evolution. It isn't fooling anyone. Dembski has provided theistic evolution a mathematical facade and called it intelligent design, but this can't hide the fact that they have no mechanism, no method, no observed event, and worst of all, no candidate for the intelligent designer. The best example of how fatal missing just one of these components can be is Wegener's continental drift theory. He had evidence that the continents of North America, South America, Europe and Africa had once been joined, but he had no mechanism. Scientists just couldn't imagine continents plowing through sea floor. There was no mechanism that could make this happen, and no evidence that it had happened. It took the discovery of subduction and production of sea floor for Wegener's ideas to suddenly seem reasonable and become accepted. IDists need to find evidence of what they claim has happened. That biological processes are insufficient to produce the variety and complexity of life is an unsupported assertion, yet it is the very foundation of ID. All the Dembski terminology of specified complexity, contingency, information and so forth is just so much mumbo-jumbo, for he defines them without any reference to the experimental studies that would have been necessary to develop them. Until this work is done, IDists are just building castles in the air. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
{deleted double post}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 09-17-2004 08:43 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
As I have said before there are fundamental contradictions between what ID claims and the faith based hypothesis of strict literal biblical intrepretation christian creationism as well as with other forms of creationism. Anyone who thinks otherwise has not looked at the full implications of IDism.
This still does not answer whether or not IDism is a faith. There are several threads where I have argued this, and you have yet to show a valid response to the arguments. As an example you have yet to state whether or not the definition of supernatural is correct. The list of unanswered posts on where you have been asked this subtopic alone is:http://EvC Forum: ID as Religion http://EvC Forum: ID as Religion http://EvC Forum: ID as Religion http://EvC Forum: ID as Religion I expect to see a followup on that topic (not here, heaven forfend that I would take your thread off topic the way you continually do mine) Enjoy. ps -- you still have not asked Mr Hambre what he considers to be creationism. I think he has a valid point that you are missing. If that is so, then this post amounts to a hissyfit. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5847 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I think you are getting caught up with definitions.
I think everyone here has been admitting that if one uses a strict definition of creationism, which traditionally is YEC, then ID would not be creationism. The problem is that "creationism" does not have to be JUST YEC. You should realize this since you are a Buddhist and would not have to agree to any tenet of YEC and yet if you were pushing that your religious beliefs about how the earth was created should be taught in schools it would still count as "creationism". Thus the criticism is from a broad sense. And RAZD has gone further to define this in the form of involving faith, or specifically faith in the supernatural. But that I'll leave that for them...
2) Creationist very much doubt common descent. You have said that you doubt common descent. That makes you a creationist. You also call yourself IDman. Doesn't your argument that ID has nothing to do with Creationism seem particularly strained from that position? This message has been edited by holmes, 09-17-2004 11:49 AM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I agree holmes that the problem is within the definitions of the words.
If you look at the Wikipedia articleCreationism - Wikipedia You will see reference to several forms of creationism, ID and Deism. I think it is important enough that when a specific form of creationism is discussed that it be modified to make your statements more accurate: YE Creationism or literal biblical creationism, for instance. Wonder if he will be back, though ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
An analogy that makes clear why ID is not science just occurred to me. Astrology is a very popular pseudo-science. It is pseudo-science, and not science, because they have never been able to experimentally verify any of their assertions. For the sake of discussion let's say that astrology asserts that Mars rising in someone's horoscope means that they will have a nasty temper. But where is the experimental data establishing this? There isn't any!
It's the same for ID. ID asserts that biological organisms possess specified complexity in a contingent manner that could only be the product of an intelligence. But where is the experimental data establishing this? There isn't any! And that's why ID is a pseudo-science. Its purpose isn't to convince scientists. Without evidence it hasn't a prayer of doing that. Its purpose is to convince the faithful, but most of the faithful are evangelicals who will reject ID once they discover it denies Genesis, and Dembski himself is quite explicit that ID rejects the Genesis account. Yet the IDists and the young earth Creationists represented by organizations like ICR and CRS are in bed anyway, because they need each other. If it weren't for evangelicals latching onto ID as their only hope after the failure to move young earth Creationism into public schools, ID would be receiving extremely little attention. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Not precisely on topic, but not far off either: Dr Dembski is leaving Baylor for a position at the Southern Baptist theological Seminary.
Domain Names, Web Hosting and Online Marketing Services | Network Solutions In fact, "Dembski and other evangelical scholars such as Phillip E. Johnson have used arguments of intelligent design to loosen the stranglehold that Darwinian naturalism has held over contemporary science and academic thought." Isn't that special?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1421 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
RAZD,
quote:I disagree. You're free to amuse yourself with semantics, and no one's saying there aren't subtle or not-so-subtle differences in the way creationist ideology describes itself. However, as Percy pointed out here, the common denominator in all the creationisms we see is their insistence that natural law is not inviolable, that the universe is not self sufficient. By asserting that intelligent intervention was not only possible but necessary, ID creationism is being just as anti-scientific as YEC. The IDC camp can't define exactly what the weakness of naturalism is (and why it doesn't invalidate all other scientific inquiry), but they say it's an outmoded paradigm. Empirical evidential inquiry is predicated on the assumption that the universe is self-sufficient. Regardless of your personal philosophy, the philosophy of science disqualifies miracles and divine fiddling as valid answers to scientific mysteries. The reason ID is a form of creationism, and that creationism is faith and not science, is because both denigrate methodological naturalism as some sort of atheistic loophole instead of recognizing that it's the very basis of scientific endeavor itself. reagrds,Esteban Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
But even more significantly, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr. is quoted saying:
"The real significance of intelligent design theory and its related movement is the success with which it undermines the materialistic and naturalistic worldview central to the theory of evolution." No surprise there. I wonder if Dembski would agree? Anyway, it's his own fault for deciding to get in bed with these people and let them use ID toward their own ends without objection. And Dembski himself is quoted saying:
"Theology is where my ultimate passion is..." No surprise there either. Though Dembski was at Baylor, a respected scientific institution, he wasn't in a scientific part of Baylor. They apparently had him squirreled away in Baylor University's Institute for Faith and Learning. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
so you are saying that the original post that purports to draw a line between IDism and YECreationism is too narrow and is not taking into account the broader spectrum of creationism, but that discussion of the semantics involved is just amusing?
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1421 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
RAZD,
Don't be snide. Where did I bring up the "broader spectrum of creationism"? If you want to debate these angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin niceties with your buddy ID man, knock yourself out. Whether ID is a kind of creationism or creationism is a subset of ID is neither here nor there in my estimation. The funding sources and media outlets enjoyed by IDC are the same as mainstream creationism. The target audience for both is the same. Their tactics involve the same sort of misrepresentation and appeals to "fairness" instead of objectivity. And they both deny the legitimacy of the basis of scientific endeavor. regards,Esteban Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5847 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
If you want to debate these angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin niceties with your buddy ID man, knock yourself out. I don't understand what your position is. Or I should say I don't understand why you think RAZD or I are saying something different than you. We are both telling IDman that HE is not understanding the discussion because he keeps believing that creationism means just YEC. This is not true since there are many creation stories out there. The consistent denominator is "creation" as an explanation of how things happened. I don't think RAZD or myself are denying, nor does are argument take away from your point. I am way onboard with the criticism that they are trying to move us back centuries in science and rational thought, through undermining methodological naturalism. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
quote: The reality shows that if anything Creation is a part of ID. IOW it may be shown that Creation is a subset of ID at the most. Are you saying that Ken Miller and Joe Meert (and others) are actually Creationists?
quote: As if materialistic naturalists have any credibility. ID is based on observation. What is materialistic naturalism based on?
quote: Dembski is not the only IDist. Design is a mechanism, however it is not important to know how something was designed in order to detect and understand that design. IOW you have set up a strawman. No method- see previous. No observed event? And you observed nature acting alone bringing forth life from non-life? Have you observed nature acting alone bringing forth the bacterial flagellum? We don't need a candidate for the designer. I don't have to know who designed the jet-airliners to know they were designed. Percy's second paragraph is nothing more than one starwman after another.
quote: We have and it has been presented:
We can detect design by the coming together of separate parts or components in an ordered way in such a functional system is formed that is dependent upon the order and those individual parts or components. With the bacterial flagellum not only is a functioning system formed but the energy to drive it is supplied as is the ability (or even knowledge how) to use it, which requires a communication link. So far the only alleged pre-cursor to the bacterial flagellum, the type III secretory system, has been shown to be if anything an offshoot of the BF. Yet here we have all these proteins that come together as if they were instructed to do so, just like we see parts come together to form a product in automated factories, and the vocal minority won’t allow science to infer ID. It is only a matter of time before that minority gets put in its place. IDists say there are actual instructions that [1] tell the proteins to form; [2] direct them to an assembly area; [3] direct them to form the bac flag; [4] give the organism the ability to use the new part [5] connect the new part to the organism’s power and communication grid. quote: The unsupported assertion is that biological processes are sufficient. Where did those processes come from? Where is your positive evidence Percy? The double-standards are obvious. This message has been edited by ID man, 09-18-2004 09:10 AM "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024